Minutes of the Third Meeting THE WASHINGTON COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Transcription

1 Minutes of the Third Meeting THE WASHINGTON COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Date: May 8, 2013 Time: 9:30 a.m. Place: Conference Room 249 Washington Highway Department 900 Lang Street West Bend, WI Advisory Committee Members Present R.J. Bast... Director of Operations, GoRiteway Transportation Group Operator, Washington Commuter Express John Bloor... Executive Director, The Threshold, Inc. Debi Genthe... Executive Director, Interfaith Caregivers of Washington Daniel R. Goetz... Supervisor, Washington Board Chairperson, Washington Board of Supervisors Transportation Committee Mike Hermann... Director of Parks and Recreation, City of Hartford Operator, Hartford City Taxi Steve Johnson... President, Specialized Transportation Services, Inc. Operator, Washington Shared-Ride Taxi Daniel Ludwig... Director of Public Works, Village of Germantown Jacob Miller... Policy & Program Analyst, Wisconsin Department of Transportation Linda Olson... Director, Aging and Disability Resource Center of Washington Mark Piotrowicz... City Planner/Operations Manager, West Bend Department of Community Development Joshua Schoemann... Administrator, Village of Richfield Daniel W. Stoffel... Supervisor, Washington Board Commissioner, Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission Thomas H. Wenzel... Vice President, Tavern League of Washington Thomas Wondra... Highway Commissioner, Washington Highway Department Guests and Staff Present C Terrence Anderson... Planner, SEWRPC Doug Johnson... Administrative Coordinator, Washington Administration Department Eric D. Lynde... Senior Planner, SEWRPC Kevin J. Muhs... Planner, SEWRPC Karen Schmiechen...Urban Planning Analyst, Wisconsin Department of Transportation Joseph Steier, III... Transit Manager, Washington Highway Department Herb Tennies... Chairman, Washington Board Kenneth R. Yunker... Executive Director, SEWRPC

2 ROLL CALL -2- Mr. Stoffel called the meeting to order at 9:33 a.m. He indicated that roll call would be taken through the circulation of a meeting sign-in sheet. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 6, 2013, MEETING Mr. Stoffel indicated that the first item on the agenda was the consideration and approval of the minutes for the previous meeting of the Advisory Committee held on March 6, Ms. Olson made a motion to approve the previous meeting s minutes. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion, and the Advisory Committee unanimously approved the minutes. Mr. Stoffel nominated Mr. Goetz as Vice-Chairman of the Advisory Committee to act as Chairman in case he is unable to attend an advisory meeting. There being no objections, Mr. Goetz s nomination was unanimously approved by the Advisory Committee. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY DRAFT CHAPTER III, PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE OBJECTIVES AND STANDARDS, OF SEWRPC COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE PLANNING REPORT NO. 317, WASHINGTON COUNTY TRANSIT SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT PLAN Mr. Stoffel drew the Advisory Committee s attention to the next order of business, consideration of Chapter III, Public Transit Service Objectives and Standards, of the SEWRPC Community Assistance Planning Report No. 317, Washington Transit System Development Plan, which had been distributed to the Advisory Committee. He asked Commission staff to review the chapter with the Committee. Mr. Muhs summarized the text of the chapter, noting that Figure 3-1 of the chapter contained draft objectives, principles, and standards for the plan and had been presented to the committee during its previous meeting on March 6, There being no further discussion on the chapter, a motion to approve Chapter III was sought by Mr. Stoffel, made by Mr. Wondra, seconded by Mr. Ludwig, and approved unanimously by the Advisory Committee. PRESENTATION OF A PRELIMINARY DRAFT EVALUATION OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY TRANSIT SYSTEM Mr. Yunker introduced Exhibit A, which summarizes a preliminary draft evaluation of the Commuter Express and Shared-Ride Taxi systems and includes a discussion of potential alternatives (see Attachment 1 to these minutes). Exhibit B, detailing information on the peer transit systems of the s services, had also been distributed to the Committee (see Attachment 2 to these minutes). Mr. Yunker noted that the evaluation provides insight into potential areas of improvement and will assist in the development of alternatives for the s transit services. He then asked Mr. Muhs to present the draft evaluation to the committee. Mr. Muhs indicated that the information in Exhibits A and B would form the basis of Chapter IV of the plan, and led the Committee through a presentation of the draft evaluation. During the presentation of the peer transit systems selected for comparison to the transit system, the following questions and comments were raised: 1. Mr. Yunker noted that it was difficult to find peer systems providing only express service. Many of the potential peer systems that were considered by Commission staff do not separate the data between their express services and local services.

3 -3-2. Mr. Goetz asked if the service provided between Green Bay and Milwaukee is a possible peer service to the Commuter Express. Mr. Yunker indicated that the service between Green Bay and Milwaukee was not a peer service because it is not a service in which patrons are commuting between work and home it is an inter-city service. 3. Mr. Miller noted that the service between Verona and Madison could be considered a peer service; however, the system has only been operating for four years. [Secretary s Note: Given that the Verona-to-Madison service has only been operating for four years, there is not sufficient data to compare it to the Commuter Express in Washington.] 4. Mr. Johnson asked if the peer group systems covered the entire county in which they operate. Mr. Muhs confirmed that each peer group does cover the entire county. 5. Ms. Schmiechen asked for confirmation that Clermont Transportation Connection s operating budget is correct given that is significantly lower than any other peer group system. Mr. Muhs confirmed. 6. Mr. Yunker noted that the Commuter Express has poor performance compared to its peers under the passengers per capita performance metric because peer systems have more routes providing more coverage of their service areas. He also noted that the Commuter Express poor performance compared to its peers under the passengers per vehicle mile performance metric could be due to the Commuter Express providing longer average passenger journeys than peer systems. 7. Mr. Piotrowicz asked whether the Loudoun Commuter Bus is a reasonable peer if it has a two hour travel time, citing the Washington, D.C. region s notoriously high level of congestion. [Secretary s Note: Following the meeting, Commission staff verified that the Loudoun Commuter Bus travels on Interstate Highway 66, which has high occupancy vehicle lanes. These lanes allow the commuter bus to travel quickly in to Washington, D.C., with both the Loudoun Commuter Bus and the Washington Commuter Express traveling approximately 40 miles in 1 hour and 20 minutes.] 8. Mr. Piotrowicz asked if the Butler Regional Transit Authority (BRTCA) offers a specialty service stop, particularly to the regional airport in Kentucky. [Secretary s Note: According to the BRCTA s website, the shuttle service provided does not have a specialty service stop to the airport. However, the BCRTA does provide specialty service to shopping centers and community connectors at a discounted price from the standard adult cash fare.] During the presentation of the evaluation of the Commuter Express service, the following questions and comments were raised: 1. Mr. Stoffel asked if General Mitchell International Airport (GMIA) should be considered as a future stop for the Commuter Express. Mr. Steier noted that, to his knowledge, there is no

4 -4- demand for service to GMIA. Mr. Yunker indicated that Commission staff would analyze adding service to GMIA as part of the alternatives analysis, and noted that any service to the airport would need to provide a convenient return trip. Ms. Olson noted that serving the airport may be a unique challenge because any service may need to pay for access to the Airport. 2. Mr. Wondra inquired as to why Marquette University High School did not fit in the category of major institutions of higher education. Mr. Muhs clarified that the definition of institutions of higher education used to evaluate this standard only includes traditional non-profit and public four-year universities and colleges, the main campus of technical schools, and the main campus of community colleges not high schools. 3. Mr. Bast inquired as to whether there is a standard for type of vehicles, noting that vehicle type can have a significant impact on operating cost. Mr. Muhs indicated that all of the peer systems except the Clermount Transportation Connection and Ozaukee Express use a standard motor coach, similar to the Commuter Express. 4. Mr. Stoffel and Mr. Wondra requested that Commission staff consider adding a Commuter Express route, or shuttle, connecting Hartford to other Commuter Express routes. Mr. Yunker indicated that Commission staff was planning to analyze the feasibility of adding both a traditional route and a reverse commute route to Hartford in the alternatives chapter. Mr. Steier noted that the last time additional routes were implemented was in Mr. Goetz asked if the service provided by Lamers Bus Lines from Milwaukee to Wausau would consider serving a park and ride lot in Washington. Mr. Muhs indicated that staff was planning to contact Lamers to discuss that possibility. 6. Mr. Stoffel requested that a stop at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee be considered as part of the alternatives analysis. 7. Mr. Wondra requested that a route extending to Fond du Lac for children traveling from Washington to several private schools in the Fond du Lac area be considered. 8. Mr. Wondra noted that the route to the Regional Medical Center is not utilized to full capacity and that perhaps more stops should be added to the route or a smaller vehicle be used. 9. Ms. Olson asked if there was going to be a park-and-ride lot added to the intersection of Highway 41 and Highway 60. Mr. Miller noted that adding a new park-and-ride lot was planned as part of the next reconstruction of that section of highway.. Ms. Olson suggested that a flex-route service could be provided to connect the cities of Hartford and West Bend. During the presentation of the evaluation of the Shared-Ride Taxi service, the following questions and comments were raised: 1. Mr. Yunker noted that the Butler Regional Transit Authority Shared Ride Taxi ranked among the highest for ridership and service effectiveness even though they have the highest fares, and indicated that Commission staff would contact them and look at their service in more detail.

5 -5-2. Mr. Johnson asked if capital costs are a part of the listed operating cost. Mr. Muhs noted that annual capital costs and operating costs are reported separately to the National Transit Database. Mr. Yunker indicated that Commission staff will check to ensure that operating and capital expenses are separate when operations are contracted to a private operator. 3. Mr. Yunker noted that staff has previously discussed merging the West Bend Taxi and Hartford City Taxi with the Washington Shared-Ride Taxi service. He noted that this discussion stems from the creation of the West Bend Urbanized Area and the accompanying changes in Federal and State funding of the municipal taxi systems. He stated that further analysis of any potential merger would be included in the alternatives analysis chapter. 4. Mr. Goetz and Mr. Piotrowicz noted that there is heavy Shared-Ride Taxi service usage between the villages of Germantown and Menomonee Falls. Mr. Miller suggested that the Shared-Ride Taxi service could be split by urbanized area, with one service covering the Milwaukee Urbanized Area, and another covering the rest of Washington. 5. Mr. Johnson suggested evaluating the combining of transit services in Ozaukee and Washington Counties. NEXT MEETING OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Mr. Yunker stated that Commission staff would provide a draft of Chapter IV for the Committee s consideration at its next meeting, scheduled for July, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Advisory Committee, a motion to adjourn the meeting was sought by Mr. Stoffel, made by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Goetz, and approved unanimously by the Advisory Committee at :53 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Kenneth R. Yunker Recording Secretary KRY/KJM/CTA/cta 5/20/2013 #211278

6 Attachment 1 EXHIBIT A WASHINGTON COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN EVALUATION OF THE COUNTY TRANSIT SYSTEM #2868 Advisory Committee Meeting #3 Washington Highway Department May 8, 2013 OUTLINE Evaluation Process Peer Groups Commuter Express Evaluation Shared-Ride Taxi Evaluation Discussion of Potential Alternatives 2 1

7 EVALUATION PROCESS Uses Objectives and Standards Includes Peer Comparisons Provides Insight into Potential Areas of Improvement Assists in Alternatives Development 3 PEER GROUP SELECTION Similarity of Service Type and Characteristics Other Factors: Ridership Urban Area Population Total Vehicle Miles Operated Total Budget Proximity to Washington Urban Area s Status as a State Capital Percentage of College Students Service Area Size Service Area Population Each service has 6 peers 4 2

8 COMMUTER EXPRESS PEER GROUP Service Type and Characteristics for the Commuter Express service and Peer Services System Ozaukee Express Waukesha Express Bus Clermont Transportation Connection Loudoun Commuter Bus Cobb Community Transit Georgia Regional Transportation Authority Washington Commuter Express Metropolitan Area Milwaukee Milwaukee Cincinnati Washington, D.C. Atlanta Atlanta Milwaukee Time Period Served Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Days Served Weekdays Weekdays Weekdays Weekdays Weekdays Weekdays Weekdays Commute Direction Served Adult Cash Fare Traditional and Reverse Traditional and Reverse Traditional and Reverse Traditional and Reverse Traditional and Reverse Traditional and Reverse Traditional $3.25 $3.25 $3.75 $8.00 $5.00 $5.00 $ COMMUTER EXPRESS PEER GROUP Selected 20 Data for the Commuter Express Service and Peer Services System Ozaukee Express Waukesha Express Bus Clermont Transportation Connection Loudoun Commuter Bus Cobb Community Transit Georgia Regional Transportation Authority Washington Commuter Express Metropolitan Area Milwaukee Milwaukee Cincinnati Washington, D.C. Atlanta Atlanta Milwaukee Urbanized Area Population Budget Vehicle Miles Operated 1,320,000 1,320,000 1,530,000 4,320,000 3,950,000 3,950,000 1,320,000 $1,130,000 $2,940,000 $590,000 $6,460,000 $17,420,000 $15,830,000 $1,080, , , ,000 1,270,000 3,650,000 2,270, ,

9 SHARED RIDE TAXI PEER GROUP Service Type and Characteristics for the Shared-Ride Taxi service and Peer Services System Ozaukee Shared-Ride Taxi Miami Public Transit Butler Regional Transit Authority Greene Area Transit Service Clermont Transportation Connection Fort Bend Public Transit Washington Shared-Ride Taxi Metropolitan Area Milwaukee Dayton, OH Cincinnati Dayton, OH Cincinnati Houston Milwaukee Service Type Advanced Reservation Advanced Reservation Advanced Reservation Advanced Reservation Advanced Reservation Advanced Reservation Advanced Reservation Weekday Service Hours 6:00 am - 9:00 pm 5:00 am 6:00 pm 6:00 am 11:00 pm 6:00 am 9:00 pm 6:00 am 6:00 pm 8:00 am 5:00 pm 5:00 am :00 pm Service Days 7 Days a Week Weekdays and Saturday Weekdays 7 Days a Week Weekdays and Saturday 7 Days a Week 7 Days a Week Adult Cash Fare $ $6.75 $4.00 $.00 - $30.00 $ $6.00 $4.75 $1.00 $ $ SHARED RIDE TAXI PEER GROUP Selected 20 Data for the Shared-Ride Taxi Service and Peer Services System Metropolitan Area Urbanized Area Population Budget Vehicle Miles Operated Service Area in Square Miles Population in Service Area Ozaukee Shared-Ride Taxi Miami Public Transit Butler Regional Transit Authority Greene Area Transit Service Clermont Transportation Connection Fort Bend Public Transit Washington Shared-Ride Taxi Milwaukee Dayton, OH Cincinnati Dayton, OH Cincinnati Houston Milwaukee 1,320, ,000 1,530, ,000 1,530,000 4,400,000 1,320,000 $1,420,000 $940,000 $1,330,000 $2,440,000 $1,150,000 $2,580,000 $2,000, , , , , , ,000 1,130, ,000 99, , , , , ,

10 EVALUATION OF COMMUTER EXPRESS Basic Objectives: Meet the demand and need for service to Milwaukee Operate safely, reliably, conveniently, comfortably, and efficiently Do the above cost effectively 9 OBJECTIVE 1 Applicable Standards: Design and Standards Rapid Fixed-Route Transit Service Performance Standards Major Activity Centers Population Employment 5

11 MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS SERVED Residential Facilities for Transit-Dependent Populations: Within 3 Miles - 23 Within 5 Miles - 26 Within 7 Miles MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS SERVED Accessible by Walking Accessible by Walking or Local Transit Service Job Resource Centers 0 4 Major Employers Major Hospitals, Medical Centers, or Clinics 8 17 Major Institutions of Higher Education 4 5 Major Commercial Areas 2 6 Major Activity Center Type 12 6

12 POPULATION SERVED Population within 3 Miles: 54,765 Population within 5 miles: 84,145 Population within 7 miles: 99, EMPLOYMENT SERVED Employment Accessible by Walking: 145,565 Employment Accessible by Walking or Local Transit Service: 293,

13 OBJECTIVE 2 Applicable Standards: Design and Standards Route Design Bus Stop and Park & Ride Lot Design Service Frequency and Availability Service Travel Speeds Passenger Demand Performance Standards Ridership and Service Effectiveness On-Time Performance Travel Time 15 RIDERSHIP & SERVICE EFFECTIVENESS Range of Peer Group Median of Peer Group WCCE Range that Meets the Standard Passengers per Capita Passengers per Vehicle Hour Passengers per Vehicle Mile Passenger Miles per Vehicle Mile

14 ON TIME PERFORMANCE To Be Completed 17 TRAVEL TIME To Be Completed 18 9

15 OBJECTIVE 3 Applicable Standards: Design and Standards Fare Structure Performance Standards Expenses Cost Effectiveness 19 OPERATING EXPENSES Range of Peer Group Median of Peer Group WCCE Range that Meets the Standard Per Revenue Vehicle Mile Percent in Expenses Per Revenue Vehicle Hour Per Total Vehicle Mile Per Total Vehicle Hour % 5.70 % % 2.96 % % 3.36 % % %

16 OPERATING EXPENSES Range of Peer Group Median of Peer Group WCCE Range that Meets the Standard Percent in Assistance 25 Per Passenger % % COST EFFECTIVENESS Range of Peer Group Median of Peer Group WCCE Range that Meets the Standard Cost per Passenger Cost per Passenger Mile Farebox Recovery Ratio $9.76 $8.79 $ $0.48 $ $ % 29.5 % 25.8 %

17 EVALUATION OF SHARED RIDE TAXI Meeting the demand and need for travel within Washington safely, reliably, conveniently, comfortably, and efficiently Doing the above cost effectively 23 OBJECTIVE 1 Applicable Standards: Design and Standards Demand-Responsive Transit Service Performance Standards Major Activity Centers Population Employment 24 12

18 OBJECTIVE 2 Applicable Standards: Design and Standards Service Frequency and Availability Service Travel Speeds Performance Standards Ridership and Service Effectiveness On-Time Performance Travel Time 25 RIDERSHIP & SERVICE EFFECTIVENESS Range of Peer Group Median of Peer Group WCSRT Range that Meets the Standard Passengers per Capita Passengers per Vehicle Hour Passengers per Vehicle Mile Passenger Miles per Vehicle Mile

19 ON TIME PERFORMANCE To Be Completed 27 TRAVEL TIME To Be Completed 28 14

20 OBJECTIVE 3 Applicable Standards: Design and Standards Fare Structure Performance Standards Expenses Cost Effectiveness 29 OPERATING EXPENSES Range of Peer Group Median of Peer Group WCSRT Range that Meets the Standard 5 Per Revenue Vehicle Mile 4.52 % Percent in Expenses Per Revenue Vehicle Hour 5 Per Total Vehicle Mile 4.41 % Per Total Vehicle Hour % % % 2.91 % % %

21 OPERATING EXPENSES Range of Peer Group Median of Peer Group WCSRT Range that Meets the Standard Percent in Assistance 15 Per Passenger 4.41 % 1.67 % COST EFFECTIVENESS Median of Peer Group Range of Peer Group WCSRT Range that Meets the Standard Cost per Passenger Cost per Passenger Mile Farebox Recovery Ratio $ $ $ $24.54 $ $ % % 15.5 %

22 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION Objective Standard Commuter Express Shared-Ride Taxi Rapid Fixed-Route Transit Service Objective No. 1 Meeting the demand and need for transit services Demand-Responsive Transit Service Major Activity Centers Population Employment Route Design Bus Stop and Park & Ride Lot Design Objective No. 2 safely, reliably, conveniently, comfortably, and efficiently Service Frequency and Availability Service Travel Speeds Passenger Demand Ridership and Service Effectiveness Objective No. 3 Achieving the other objectives at the lowest possible cost On-Time Performance Travel Time Fare Structure Expenses Cost Effectiveness 33 SOME POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES Commuter Express Additional Route from Hartford Begin Existing Routes in West Bend Additional Runs On Existing Routes Serve More Destinations in Milwaukee Restart Reverse Commute Service Shared-Ride Taxi Additional Vehicle Depot in Richfield/Germantown Extend Service Hours Potential Merger with West Bend Taxi and/or Hartford City Taxi 34 17

23 Attachment 2 EXHIBIT B Table B-1 COMMUTER EXPRESS PEER GROUP DATA FOR THE RIDERSHIP AND SERVICE EFFECTIVENESS PERFORMANCE STANDARD Performance Measures Passengers per Capita Passengers per Revenue Vehicle Hour Passengers per Revenue Vehicle Mile Passenger Miles per Revenue Vehicle Mile Washington Waukesha Clermont Georgia Regional Ozaukee Loudoun Cobb Community Express Transportation Transportation Express Commuter Bus Transit Commuter Bus Connection Authority Express Milwaukee, WI Milwaukee, WI Cincinnati, OH Washington, D.C. Atlanta, GA Atlanta, GA Milwaukee, WI % % % 13.34% -1.34% 7.66% 8.36% % % 42.93% 1.88% -3.97% 2.58% 14.46% % % 49.21% 0.02% -3.01% -7.94% 6.27% % -2.95% 21.66% -0.83% -5.46% -0.48% 6.72%

24 Table B-2 COMMUTER EXPRESS PEER GROUP DATA FOR THE OPERATING EXPENSES PERFORMANCE STANDARD Performance Measures Expenses per Revenue Vehicle Mile Expenses per Revenue Vehicle Hour Expenses per Vehicle Mile Expenses per Vehicle Hour Assistance per Passenger Washington Waukesha Clermont Georgia Regional Ozaukee Loudoun Cobb Community Express Transportation Transportation Express Commuter Bus Transit Commuter Bus Connection Authority Express Milwaukee, WI Milwaukee, WI Cincinnati, OH Washington, D.C. Atlanta, GA Atlanta, GA Milwaukee, WI 2007 $5.31 $6.05 $1.84 $4.53 $4.23 $7.07 $ $6.37 $6.15 $4. $5.50 $4.65 $7.34 $ % 0.51% 36.22% 5.20% 2.83% 1.30% 2.57% 2007 $ $ $60.19 $ $85.48 $ $ $ $ $ $ $90.42 $ $ % 4.34% 29.47% 7.01% 1.68% 15.18% 9.71% 2007 $3.78 $4.53 $1.51 $2.39 $3.68 $4. $ $4.07 $4.55 $2.23 $3.07 $4.26 $4.32 $ % 0.34% 15.09% 6.70% 3.86% 1.60% 3.48% 2007 $9.28 $98.01 $49.31 $83.07 $77.30 $79.03 $ $ $ $61.07 $87.11 $86.13 $ $ % 3.79%.94% 1.37% 2.92% 13.73% 4.83% 2007 $8.27 $4.97 $8.65 $1.32 $2. $5.35 $ $7.73 $.73 $5.36 $1.46 $2.26 $7. $ % 21.83% % 8.85% 3.08%.58% -3.08% -2-

25 Table B-3 COMMUTER EXPRESS PEER GROUP DATA FOR THE COST EFFECTIVENESS PERFORMANCE STANDARD Performance Measures Expenses per Passenger Expenses per Passenger Mile Farebox Recovery Ratio Washington Waukesha Clermont Georgia Regional Ozaukee Loudoun Cobb Community Express Transportation Transportation Express Commuter Bus Transit Commuter Bus Connection Authority Express Milwaukee, WI Milwaukee, WI Cincinnati, OH Washington, D.C. Atlanta, GA Atlanta, GA Milwaukee, WI 2007 $.21 $6.65 $.06 $5.88 $2.88 $7.37 $ $.02 $13.78 $7.55 $7.15 $3.60 $11.00 $ % 20.56% -9.07% 5.08% 6.29% 12.38% -2.77% 2007 $0.46 $0.55 $0.46 $0.18 $0.34 $0.42 $ $0.49 $0.65 $0.57 $0.22 $0.47 $0.45 $ % 4.69% 11.40% 6.00% 8.90% 2.70% -3.40% % 25.24% 14.03% 77.50% 26.95% 27.43% 27.17% % 22.15% 28.98% 79.61% 37.28% 35.44% 29.49% 5.64% -3.03% 29.43% 0.90% 9.66% 7.94% 2.71% -3-

26 Table B-4 SHARED-RIDE TAXI PEER GROUP DATA FOR THE RIDERSHIP AND SERVICE EFFECTIVENESS PERFORMANCE STANDARD Performance Measures Passengers per Capita Passengers per Revenue Vehicle Hour Passengers per Revenue Vehicle Mile Passenger Miles per Revenue Vehicle Mile Butler Greene Clermont Washington Ozaukee Miami Fort Bend Regional Transit Area Transit Transportation Shared- Shared-Ride Taxi Public Transit Public Transit Authority Service Connection Ride Taxi Milwaukee, WI Dayton, OH Cincinnati, OH Dayton, OH Cincinnati, OH Houston, TX Milwaukee, WI % -2.78% 6.29% 46.72% -5.62% 29.06% 0.02% % 3.64% 4.75% -3.62% -9.37% 8.83% -3.30% % 2.48% 4.07% % -7.84% 1.99% -1.79% % 5.04% 5.44% -2.97% -6.11% 1.14% -0.59% -4-

27 Table B-5 SHARED-RIDE TAXI PEER GROUP DATA FOR THE OPERATING EXPENSES PERFORMANCE STANDARD Performance Measures Expenses per Revenue Vehicle Mile Expenses per Revenue Vehicle Hour Expenses per Vehicle Mile Expenses per Vehicle Hour Assistance per Passenger Butler Greene Clermont Washington Ozaukee Miami Fort Bend Regional Transit Area Transit Transportation Shared- Shared-Ride Taxi Public Transit Public Transit Authority Service Connection Ride Taxi Milwaukee, WI Dayton, OH Cincinnati, OH Dayton, OH Cincinnati, OH Houston, TX Milwaukee, WI 2007 $1.96 $2.21 $2.98 $4.70 $2.44 $3.06 $ $1.81 $2.38 $3.30 $3.12 $2.52 $2.94 $ % 2.03% 2.64% % 1.25% -0.79% 4.52% 2007 $38.60 $39.61 $56.77 $63.31 $50.74 $47.22 $ $34.07 $43.91 $64.52 $54.28 $49.53 $59.31 $ % 2.94% 3.32% -7.34% -0.22% 6.17% 2.91% 2007 $1.72 $1.99 $2.40 $3.87 $1.99 $2.27 $ $1.63 $2.18 $2.64 $2.50 $2.01 $2.56 $ % 2.55% 2.56% % 0.80% 3.24% 4.41% 2007 $33.47 $36.04 $47.53 $53.13 $45.91 $41.69 $ $30.87 $40.62 $51.95 $43.33 $38.42 $54.24 $ % 3.% 2.35% -9.49% -3.28% 7.08% 3.47% 2007 $16.18 $14.36 $4.55 $29.75 $20.97 $29.13 $ $16.18 $15.58 $5.58 $24.27 $30.79 $26.44 $ % 4.84% 6.69% -9.60%.55% -1.82% 5.67% -5-

28 Table B-6 SHARED-RIDE TAXI PEER GROUP DATA FOR THE COST EFFECTIVENESS PERFORMANCE STANDARD Performance Measures Expenses per Passenger Expenses per Passenger Mile Farebox Recovery Ratio Butler Greene Clermont Washington Ozaukee Miami Fort Bend Regional Transit Area Transit Transportation Shared- Shared-Ride Taxi Public Transit Public Transit Authority Service Connection Ride Taxi Milwaukee, WI Dayton, OH Cincinnati, OH Dayton, OH Cincinnati, OH Houston, TX Milwaukee, WI 2007 $18.63 $21.38 $18.15 $37.96 $22.51 $29.50 $ $19.01 $21.95 $17.26 $35.12 $32.59 $27.13 $ % 3.33% -1.09% -3.81%.00% -1.53% 6.71% 2007 $2.69 $2.87 $1.73 $2.82 $2.03 $2.66 $ $2.70 $2.68 $1.59 $2.04 $2.82 $2.49 $ % 1.00% -1.55% -13.% 11.23% -0.27% 5.56% % 32.84% 74.91% 21.62% 6.88% 1.26% 12.39% % 29.01% 67.67% 30.91% 5.53% 2.54% 15.49% 3.85% -2.13% -2.31% 20.98% -2.74% 21.43% 6.14% KRY/KJM/kjm # /7/